interpersonalskills are less likely to pursue a career in engineering (vs. in a non-engineering field) thanstudents with lower self-confidence in these skills [6, 10]. However, only one of the abovestudies [9] investigated the connection between engineering undergraduates' self-efficacy in theircommunication skills and their perceived importance of these skills directly, despite a suggestionfrom Riemer [4] that they might be related. Further, none of the above studies developedinstantiated items with which to measure communication skills. They instead relied on genericterms such as verbal communication skills, written communication skills, or presentation skills,suggesting that engineering students may not have a true understanding of what is involved ineach
-item “embracing” subscale of the CEI-II, measuring “a willingness toembrace the novel, uncertain, and unpredictable nature of everyday life” (p. 955). Respondentsindicate how they “generally feel and behave” on each item on a five-point Likert-type scalefrom 1=“Very slightly or not at all” to 5=“Extremely”. The variable “mindful attitude” is createdby averaging the four CEI-II items for each respondent. The mindful attitude items are only onthe EMS 2.0 survey.3.1.3 Measuring Innovation Self-Efficacy (ISE) and Engineering Task Self-Efficacy (ETSE)We measure both Innovation Self-Efficacy (ISE) and Engineering Task Self-Efficacy (ETSE) inthe EMS. All self-efficacy items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0=“Notconfident” to 4
our research group include a more detailed synthesis of these frameworks and thedevelopment and validation of a measure that can be used across different outreach programs.Conclusion The current body of literature suggests the presence of common impacts onundergraduate engineering students who participate in outreach. Communication and technicalskills were frequently included as an area of improvement, along with motivational and identity-related constructs such as identification with engineering and self-efficacy for professionalbehaviors. Although research and evaluation of engineering outreach has increased over the past20 years, further efforts must more clearly theorize, assess, and compare the impact of varioustypes and
todemographic characteristics (underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (URM), women, URM women),college experiences (internships/co-ops, having a job, conducting research, and study abroad), andengineering task self-efficacy (ETSE) which is a respondent characteristic that may be targeted ineducational interventions (i.e., outcome indicator for evaluation of impact of an intervention). All ofthese measures were collected on the survey instrument via self-report by student respondents to fixed-choice survey questions.Table 1. Variables compared between students classified as first-generation/low-income based on definitions Demographic Characteristics URM Underrepresented racial/ethnic minority status in response to ‘racial or ethnic
disadvantage, the symbolic meanings entwined with disabilitystatus are often expressed and experiences as positive, self-efficacious senses of identity [18] andcan be the foundation of disability community subcultures (e.g., the ASL Deaf community’sconnections through shared linguistic and cultural similarities) that work to suppress deficit-based narratives and advocate for their inclusion in policy and social change conversations [13,18].This paper focuses on three potential domains of disadvantage experienced by engineeringstudents and engineering professionals with disabilities: social marginalization, professionaldevaluation, and persistence intentions. I discuss these in detail below. As much of the attentionon the experiences of engineers with
self-efficacy, sense of belonging, identification and identityintegration. Often, negative experiences are the result of subtle bias or schemas that all studentsbring with them into their teams, and occur despite the employment of best practices in teamformation.This paper presents a summary of a contemporary understanding of this phenomenon aspresented by several individual researchers covering the fields of stereotype threat, engineeringdesign, teamwork, motivation, and race, gender and their intersections. The content of this paperwas generated by collecting the individual responses of each researcher to a set of promptsincluding: • examples of how students can be marginalized in engineering teamwork and what governing
,understanding engineering, self-efficacy, and hands-on activities/structure and virtual format. Toincrease validity in the coding, multiple researcher triangulation was conducted. The statementsset forth in Table 1 below are representative responses of students to each of the emergingthemes. Representation "I enjoyed hearing about different engineers and black and women excellence.” “It was an amazing experience to meet so many women from all different backgrounds who are so successful.” “I really liked when the women from [manufacturing company] came and spoke to us about what they did. And, when the women came and spoke her computer science journey.” “My favorite part was hearing from the speakers and their wisdom. It opened job opportunities that I
ensure they receiveeffective instruction when resources, especially time, were limited? The answer was to betterutilize an existing resource – the GTAs who assessed student work.Evolution of GTAs and Writing in EngineeringIn the last fifty years, the literature on GTA training has evolved from non-existent to discipline-specific, with the need for such training undisputed but the content of the training of moreinterest lately [5-9]. In addition, GTA self-efficacy, which involves “beliefs in one’s capabilitiesto organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” [10], hasalso been the subject of research [11-12]. Additional research has been done in training GTAs toteach writing in composition courses [13-15] and
gender and ethnic differences in STEM participation (Eccles, 2005). Theyhypothesized that educational, vocational and avocational choices would be most directly relatedto person’s expectations for success and the value they attach to the available options. TheEccles’ theory suggests that choices to engage in activities are shaped by both competence andvalue beliefs. Competence is about acquiring skills and applying them. Competence beliefs havebeen studied more widely than value beliefs among K-12 and engineering students. They aremostly based on the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is enhanced by positivefeedback, better performance, and social comparisons. Value beliefs, on the other hand, have notbeen that well studied
relaxation, improved concentration, self-confidence, improvedefficiency, good interpersonal relationship, increased attentiveness, lowered irritability levels, andan optimistic outlook in life” [15, p. 218]. Additionally, in related research on mindfulness,engineering education researchers have explored relationships between mindfulness, innovation,and self-efficacy [18], [19].Other relevant specific populationsWhile not conducted specifically with university students, there is a third body of research onanother specific population that has relevance for engineering education. Veterans chooseengineering majors at a rate of 1.5 times than that of non-engineering majors [20], and often havedifferent mental health challenges than the general student
perceptions of both the organization and the individual [61]. Researchestimates that a failure to empower employees in their work costs U.S. businesses up to $550billion annually [62]. The interaction between value incongruence and empowerment is criticalbecause it highlights a space where engineers might experience tensions that their engineeringeducation makes them ill-equipped to address [24] [38]. Notably, Chatman [63] postulates that aperson can successfully overcome potential adverse effects caused by person-organization valueincongruence—and even influence the organization’s values to be more like their own—if theyfeel empowered (i.e., perceive themselves as having self-efficacy and control) over the situation.We argue that these tensions
pursuingengineering degrees [5-6]. This is particularly true for women in STEM [7-8]. Of the womenwho do graduate with an engineering degree, many seek jobs outside of the engineering industrymore often than their male counterparts. Many reports indicate that women leave engineeringjobs in part because of low self-confidence in their technical abilities. A study published by theAmerican Sociological Review shows that women express and feel less professional roleconfidence than men when in engineering [9]. This study, along with others, affirm that womenin engineering careers often have lowered self confidence in their technical competencies even ifthey persisted through getting an engineering degree [9-10]. Lowered self-efficacy coupled withan extra pressure
. Results also show thatlong-term retention of learning improved for all topics, including ones where student examperformance was traditionally satisfactory. Finally, she reported that student interest in coursematerial increased slightly for male students following the implementation of E3s, butsignificantly for female students. She cites this as an important finding since interest in a topichas been correlated with students’ self-efficacy, which in turn relates to persistence rates inengineering, a field which fails to retain female students at the same rates as male students [34].Use of real-world examples with sociotechnical integrationDuring our search of the literature, the work of Andrade and Tomblim emerged as a case studyon the use of real
Diekman et al. [77], “STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers inother fields to fulfil communal goals (e.g., Working with or helping other people)” andindeed, found that “STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impedecommunal goals” and that “communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest inSTEM careers, even when controlling for past experience and self-efficacy in science andmathematics”; pointing out the agentic (as opposed to the communal) value of STEM.Ramsey [78] took on a study to test for the value systems of students and faculty staffmembers of a science department in a university, and found that all participants involved(students and faculty) “perceived agentic traits as more important for
] analyzed the “low-choice culture” of engineering curricula, particularly incontrast to other fields of study. In the context of new research demonstrating the value of selfdetermination or autonomy for students in motivating learning, enhancing self-efficacy, andsupporting persistence, the relative inflexibility of engineering curricula stood out starkly. Withinindividual courses, studies have shown the “power of choice” to positively influence studentoutcomes, for example, when students may choose from among a menu of design projects[45, 46], and recommendations have been made for the design of self-determination supportiveengineering-student learning experiences [47, 48]. However, Forbes, et al.,’s statistical analysis ofthe curricula at 46
an energy audit of [our] campus, working on a bookabout sustainable agriculture in the Lehigh valley, working on a traffic calming solution for [local]street. All within arms length with measurable and visible impact on student life (especially if youwere a student who volunteered at [campus organic farm], like I did!)” Another respondent invokedsustainability as a way of explaining the program to others: “I try to explain that it is a degreefocused on policy and critical thinking in engineering and sustainability with a technicalbackground.”Responses about the perceived strengths of the program also surfaced an emergent theme of“professional preparation” (8 responses). While this theme was not unexpected as a response tosurvey questions